Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Territory Of J&K Through Block vs Sheela Devi on 5 February, 2024
Author: Tashi Rabstan
Bench: Tashi Rabstan, Puneet Gupta
Sr. No. 29
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
LPA No. 07/2023
CM No. 7899/2023
CM No. 319/2023
CM No. 320/2023
Union Territory of J&K through Block
Development Officer (BDO), Marh, Jammu ....Appellant(s)
Through :- Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG.
V/s
1. Sheela Devi, Age 80 years, Wd/O Kaka Ram
2. Dwarka Nath, Age 56 years
3. Naresh Kumar, Age 51 years
4. Mohinder Kumar, Age 49 years,
All sons of Late. Sh. Kaka Ram
5. Vivek Chander, Age 23 years
S/O Naresh Kumar all of Village Patniyal
Jammu
6. Commissioner/Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, J&K Govt. Civil Sectt.
Jammu/Srinagar.
7. Financial Commissioner, Jammu.
8. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu
9. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Marh,
Jammu.
10. Naib Tehsildar, Sajadpur, Jammu
11. Ashwani Kumar (Sarpanch) Panchayat
Sangrampur, Jammu.
12. Radha Rani, (Panch) Sangrampur Jammu
situated at Village Patnyal Ward No.6 ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Jyoti Sarup, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
ORDER
05.02.2024
Tashi Rabstan,J:
1. CM No.319/2023 is an application filed by the State seeking
condonation of delay of 1803 days in filing the appeal.
2. In support of his submissions, Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG appearing for
the applicant submits that the judgment against which the appeal is sought to be
filed is passed on 18.12.2017. The certified copy of the said judgment was
received on 16.01.2018 after 29 days. On 18.10.2022, the file was sent to the
Law Department for opinion and the sanction was obtained on 21.10.2022; and
the said sanction was received by the AAG on 14.11.2022 and finally, the appeal
was filed on 25.01.2023. Hence, the delay of 1803 days is caused in filing the
appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay caused on the
part of the State in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the grounds in the
appeal are strong on merits and the applicant is sure to succeed in the appeal and
in case the delay is not condoned, the appeal be not heard on merits.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused this application.
6. On perusal of the application seeking condonation, it would transpire
that the applicant is not serious in filing the appeal on time as the State has
obtained the certified copy on 16.01.2018 and after 4 years 9 months, the file
was sent to law department for sanction, which was given on 21.10.2022. The
State has put the matter on hold for almost five years for reasons known only to
it. No reason let alone plausible one is forthcoming in the application or from the
submissions of the learned counsel for the State showing sufficient cause for
delay. It is not a case where the judgment impugned has been passed ex parte
and the applicant was oblivious of the passing of the judgment. The judgment is
passed on 18.12.2017 and the applicant was represented by Mr. Ehsan Mirza,
Dy. AG. No explanation has been tendered in the application which could justify
the time which the applicant has taken in filing the appeal.
7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal bearing Civil
Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.7595-96 of 2011
dated 24.02.2012) titled Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. V.
Living Media India Ltd. and Another on account of no proper explanation for
delay observed as under:-
"In our view, it is the right time to inform all
the Government bodies, their agencies and
instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable
and acceptable explanation for the delay and there
was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the
usual explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of
procedural red-tape in the process. The
Government departments are under a special
obligation to ensure that they perform their duties
with diligence and commitment. Condonation of
delay is an exception and should not be used as an
anticipated benefit for Government departments.
The law shelters everyone under the same light and
should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
Considering the fact that there was no proper
explanation offered by the Department for the delay
except mentioning of various dates, according to us,
the Department has miserably failed to give any
acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone
such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are
liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay."
8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while dismissing SLP (Civil) Diary
No(s).19846/2020 titled as Union of India Vs. Central Tibetan Schools Admin
& Ors., on 04.02.2021 on account of delay observed as under:-
"We have repeatedly being counselling through our
orders various Government departments, State
Governments and other public authorities that they
must learn to file appeals in time and set their house
in order so far as the legal department is concerned,
more so as technology assists them. This appears to
be falling on deaf ears despite costs having been
imposed in number of matters with the direction to
recover it from the officers responsible for the delay
as we are of the view that these officers must be
made accountable. It has not had any salutary effect
and that the present matter should have been
brought up, really takes the cake!
The aforesaid itself shows the casual
manner in which the petitioner has approached this
Court without any cogent or plausible ground for
condonation of delay. In fact, other than the
lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is
nothing which has been put on record. We have
repeatedly discouraged State Governments and
public authorities in adopting an approach that
they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when
they please ignoring the period of limitation
prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation
statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice
to refer to our judgment in the State of Madhya
Pradesh &Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary
No.9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State
of Odisha & Ors. v. Sunanda
Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No. 22605/2020
decided on 11.01.2021]........................."
9. Having regard to above referred judgment, it suggests that the
applicant has perceived delay in a cavalier manner as a routine matter and its
lackadaisical tendency is exhibited by its nonchalant manner in which the
applicant has pursued the matter. Despite the availability of huge manpower and
machinery at its disposal, the State has been in dormant state for almost 5 years
after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment impugned and did not proceed
ahead for obtaining sanction from the concerned authority. The reasons for such
delay are not forthcoming from the application. This attitude of the applicant
leads to the only inescapable conclusion that State is lethargic in approaching
this matter.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, discussions made
hereinabove and the settled law position, we hold that applicant has failed to
show sufficient cause in making good the mammoth delay of 1803 days in filing
the appeal. The delay condonation application (CM No.319/2023) is dismissed.
11. Consequently, LPA No.7/2023 is dismissed along with connected
applications.
)
(Puneet Gupta) (Tashi Rabstan)
Jammu: Judge Judge
05.02.2024
Raj Kumar
Whether the order is speaking? : Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable? : Yes/No.
